Did the Marines Have M1917's in WWI?

[slamfire]

Besides, if the design of the 1917 was so great, why did the British not use the million or so 1914 rifles that Remington, Winchester and Eddystone sold them? I have never seen a picture of a WW1 British soldier holding one, much less evidence of their general use in the trenches.

This came from the 17 August 1935 London Economist: “Bull’s-Eyes: A War Time Tragedy”.

In the winter of 1914-15 the British War Office was hard put to it to find rifles for the newly recruited armies, and under pressure from certain members of the Cabinet order for British caliber rifles were placed with the Winchester and Remington firms of America, which were ultimately increased to no less than 3.5 million rifles. In their enthusiasm, the contractors promised that deliveries would commence in the autumn of 1915, and set to work to build factories and housing accommodation for the large staff needed to cope with the colossal orders. But, alas, like so many other contractors, they failed in their promises, and deliveries in bulk did not start until the winter of 1916. Fortunately for the British troops, the wastage of rifles in trench warfare proved negligible, and the Kitchener armies were finally equipped, after some delay from the output of two British factories. By Christmas, 1916, however the American rifles were arriving in large numbers, and in February, 1917, the American factories were probably producing more rifles per week than any factories had ever turned out in the world’s history. As, however, the rifles were slightly different in type, though of the same bore as the British Service rifle, they were not sent to France, but were issued by our War Office to home defense troops, stations overseas, etc.

The British signed contracts, for what ever reasons, did not cancel them, by the time sufficient P14’s came out, they had enough Lee Enfields. Unlike the American Army, they decided not to have two service rifles with two logistic trains in their primary theater of operations, and used the P14 in a secondary role.

[Shooter5]

Am not a Brit rifle/history expert, however, it is possible many of their P14s went to overseas troops. Recall the global empire of the UK and the requirement for huge amounts of rifles. Anecdotally, the past decade saw many P14s have turned up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[11mm]

Am not a Brit rifle/history expert, however, it is possible many of their P14s went to overseas troops. Recall the global empire of the UK and the requirement for huge amounts of rifles. Anecdotally, the past decade saw many P14s have turned up in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You may be on to something there regarding post WW1 use. However, if logistics issues prevented WW1 issuance of the 1914 rifle on the western front, then why did they not simply assign them to a theater of operations like Palestine or the middle east, which was was separate and distinct. I understand that they could not stop the war and call in the SMLE rifles in an area, but one would have to think that there was a lot of wasted expense concerning the 1914 rifles which had already been purchased. They did not know in 1916 that they were going to have to arm a home guard in 1940-45. The allies thought also that the war might last to 1920. Apparently, they were going to have to store them someplace in the interim....for the next war?
I also have to doubt that the wastage, to cite the 1935 article above, was negligible in the trenches.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

They should have used them to replace the Ross rifles, which were infamous for seizing up in combat, forcing the shooter to stand up to use his foot to open the bolt. Got many of them killed (CEF).

jt

[kragluver]

I have read that the Brit's primarily used the P14 as a sniper rifle during WW1 (which of course probably only accounts for a couple thousand rifles or so). More were used in combat during WW2. Many were indeed shipped to outlying colonies for the reasons posted by Slamfire, above. As a combat rifle, the P14/M1917 was very likely a better, more durable rifle than the M1903 (certainly the sights were better!). On the target range, I prefer my 03. If I was going to war and had to choose between the two, I'd probably take the '17 (after cutting about 4" off the barrel to make it handier!).

Ejector spring breakage was the one problem with the design but that was easily remidied with a coil spring from a ball point pen

[da gimp]

I can remember that many, many heavy bore dangerous game rifles were made on both the 1917 & 1914 actions................ Which actions good gunsmiths would re-barrel to long cartridges like the .375H&H & into .458's as the action could stand any reasonable loading...........

Yup 1903's were the basis for many fine sporters in a wide variety of calibres, MichaelP has posted some flat out beauties , but I never heard of one being in .375H&H or .458Win..........

[11mm]

I have read that the Brit's primarily used the P14 as a sniper rifle during WW1 (which of course probably only accounts for a couple thousand rifles or so). More were used in combat during WW2. Many were indeed shipped to outlying colonies for the reasons posted by Slamfire, above. As a combat rifle, the P14/M1917 was very likely a better, more durable rifle than the M1903 (certainly the sights were better!). On the target range, I prefer my 03. If I was going to war and had to choose between the two, I'd probably take the '17 (after cutting about 4" off the barrel to make it handier!).

Ejector spring breakage was the one problem with the design but that was easily remidied with a coil spring from a ball point pen

Sure. The British eventually found some things to do with their 1914 rifles. It was the fact that they could not find a use for them in WW1, after they had spent a lot on them, that mystifies me.

[fkienast]

Can we get back to Marine use of the 1917? I'd like to hear some proof.

[jaie5070]

I wonder if the british, at the time of placing the orders, planned on changing the p-14s to the p-13 cartridge after the war.
john

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Can we get back to Marine use of the 1917? I'd like to hear some proof.

What "proof" do you wish? A Commandant's announcement that they be will used in training isn't sufficient? Photos (posted in previous threads) of Marines using M1917's in training isn't sufficient? They used the M1917 in training in WWI during the latter stages of 1918 - period. To my knowledge, they did not use them in combat.

jt

[fkienast]

What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.

[jgaynor]

What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.

Maybe nor your standard of proof but In Chapter 5 of Campbells "The '03 Springfield Era" (2003) p 59 . Mr Campbell states that 3/4 of US troops carried the M1917 into combat and the the USMC had received 61,000 of them. I suppose it is still open as to whether or not any marines atually used an M1917 in combat in WW1.

The most important thing about the M1917 is that we had it to begin with. Through a lack of foresight on the part of our political leaders we came upon ww1 with one national arsenal shut down and the other producing at a snails pace. Having the 03 produced by private industry was considered but quickly rejected as it would have taken much to long to assemble the necessary tools and gauges not to mention the people needed to make them.

regards,

Jim

[fkienast]

Thanks!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

What proof do I wish? Yes to all the above, but hold back on your hearsay.

To exactly what "hearsay" do you refer?

The Commandant's proclamation is posted in the June 1918 issue of Arms and the Man, the picture showing Marines training with the M1917 has been posted on this forum several times in the past (it is a WWI picture of a Marine instructor pointing at a M1903 and a M1917 hung on the wall), and if one considers that the Marines had 50,000, or so, M1903's in 1918 and only the 5th and 6th Regiments in combat, why would they need to ship M1917's to France?

Have you ever considered doing your own research?

jt

[John Beard]

To exactly what "hearsay" do you refer? Have you ever considered doing your own research?

jt

Amen! Good information ain't free!!!

J.B.